Bailable arrest warrant for DB Realty founder

Borivali metropolitan magistrate also issues warrants against six other officials of the group; Order comes on home buyer’s complaint of carpet area fraud.

The Borivali Metropolitan Magistrate has issued bailable arrest warrants against DB Realty founder Vinod Goenka and six others associated with the group directing them to appear before the court on January 25, 2018. They allegedly committed a carpet area fraud and offences under Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act (MOFA).

The arrest warrants were issued last week after the court rejected an application from Goenka and others for permanent exemption from appearance under section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Code in connection with a complaint filed by home buyer Manish Agarwal. Agarwal alleged that he was given a lower carpet area flat in DB Woods project at Goregaon in 2008.

The project was initiated by Gokuldham Real Estate Development Company Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of DB Realty. It later merged with DB Realty on October 16, 2015.

Agarwal alleged in his complaint that Gokuldham Real Estate Development Pvt Ltd had agreed to sell him flat number 3303 in A wing of the project admeasuring carpet area of 1254.75 sq ft for a sum of Rs 2.01 crore. But the information he obtained under RTI from the BMC showed it had an area of 984.36 sq ft. Also, the developer had promised the possession of the flat before June 30, 2011, but it was delayed by four years. He had filed a complaint with district deputy registrar, the competent authority under MOFA, alleging violations of section 5 of the MOFA.

During the hearings before the competent authority, DB Realty denied any violation of section 5 of MOFA, and cited non-availability of sand due to a sand-mining ban which was lifted only in 2014, delay in approvals from authorities, and by contractors for the delay. The developer also attributed mala fide intentions in Agarwal’s complaint stating that none of the other 629 flat owners in the project had complained of MOFA violations.

In his September 16, 2016 order, the competent authority – district deputy registrar NR Nikam – ruled that DB Realty had violated section 5 of MOFA which requires the promoter to maintain a separate account to be used for funding the under-construction project, and disclose all transactions under Rule 10 which DB Realty has failed to comply and convicted them under section 5 of MOFA.

Agarwal then filed a criminal complaint with the Metropolitan Magistrate 67th Court, Borivali, for alleged offences under section 420 of IPC, and various MOFA provisions. The court, on the basis of conviction under MOFA, issued summons for appearance in February 2017. DB Realty moved the Sessions Court but it upheld the Borivali court’s order. When the developer sought exemption from personal appearance, the court rejected it and issued bailable arrest warrants for Rs 15,000 each against the seven accused asking them to appear on January 25, 2018.

When contacted, advocate Shailendra Mishra, representing DB Realty, countered Agarwal’s claims. “Manish Agarwal has had no transaction with DB Realty. He had booked the flat from Gokuldham Real Estate Development Company Pvt Ltd, which merged with DB Realty in 2015 as per High Court’s order. Therefore, no criminal liability transfers except civil liability upon DB Realty vis-a-vis the flat,” Mishra said.

He said honouring civil liability, DB Realty had asked Agarwal to take possession of the flat which he refused on various grounds and instead moved the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking a compensation of Rs 9 crore although his investment is much less.

“DB Realty states on record that Agarwal’s claim of lower carpet area is false. He had also filed a police complaint following which the police offered to verify the carpet area by bringing his architect, but he didn’t agree,” Mishra said.

When contacted, Agarwal’s lawyer Saikumar Pathrudu said, “DB Realty’s claims are false and without any substance. They had made all these claims before the Sessions Court which rejected their revision application and upheld the Borivali’s court’s order.”